[mcenedo]

Shouldn't any "evidence" not related to the Times false and malicious charges, be automatically excluded?

[sauropod]

Bkmk

[\/\/ayne]

I’ve only seen commercials for that show but it looks demonic.

[Magnum44]

One does have to ask "Why, Sarah? Just why?"

[corkoman]

I’m so confused.

[Darksheare]

In a reasonable logical world, yes.
But this is clownworld.
Honk honk.

[jdsteel]

Yes.

Here’s the background:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/sarah-palins-lawsuit-against-ny-times-can-go-to-trial-judge

[Valpal1]

Absolutely. It’s nonsense to allow any “evidence” that occurred after the article written by the Times that is the basis of the suit. It has no probative value whatsoever and is definitely intended to prejudice and confuse the jury.

Unless the Slimes is claiming that their reporters engage in time travel to gather news.

[mass55th]

Since they don’t allow the criminal history of career criminals to be introduced into their court hearings as evidence, this should be a no-brainer.

[lee martell]

Anytime you want the general public ‘barred’ from seeing something that was on TV, that will probably result in lots of people suddenly wanting to see it.
I tried to forget that she ever went on that show.

[McGruff]

I had no idea what “The Masked Singer” was until now.